Reader Poll Results: Utility Storm Preparedness

We asked readers if they thought the industry had done its best in storm preparedness. About 35 percent of responders believe that we’ve done about all we can reasonably do within the bounds of cost-effectiveness. About 29 percent believe we could do more to storm harden the system, particularly as we go about replacing damaged and destroyed assets. But they also believed that a major redesign was too costly to consider. So, putting those two groups of responders together, we conclude that the majority, 64 percent, of poll responders don’t think we should do much more to prepare for future storms.

The poll had other responses: About 16 percent were in favor of massive undergrounding. Another 16 percent thought that government and regulators should lead the way in an all-out effort to improve storm preparedness, particularly in the more storm prone areas.

Several readers left clear and thoughtful comments:

“The best overall T&D solution will begin with upgraded infrastructure design in disaster prone areas, implementation of microgrids, local power production and storage. While mass undergrounding is cost prohibitive, above ground design can be upgraded at a fraction of undergrounding cost. “

“… we need to think out of the box - the best solution is to construct an electric grid with lots of microgrids and renewables. Bring the energy resources as close to the load as possible! But this will require a different operating and planning paradigm for utilities. But that is what is called Active Distribution System Planning and Operations.”

“Power companies have neglected basic duties like keeping trees and brush away from their lines and poles. There are far too many instances of trees growing right up into, next to, or against wires and poles. Then they act surprised when a big storm takes down the wires. If there are to be any new Federal regulations, they ought to be to make utility companies MAINTAIN their existing physical plants.”

“… upgrades aren't needed everywhere. Why not pick the most storm prone areas and focus on them. It makes no sense to have some sort of ‘national’ upgrade run by the government.”

I also received several emails from readers that expressed similar thoughts.

Bottom line of opinion seems to be:

We could do a better job of maintaining and managing existing lines, making sure that we have adequate clearance from potential tree breakage.

Mass undergrounding is way more costly than adequate above ground upgrades. In addition, underground cables bring additional challenges during flooding and ground damage.

To keep costs down upgrades should be focused on areas subject to the most damage.

System vulnerability might be reduced with careful deployment of microgrids and distributed generation and storage resources.

Featured Video

Learn how you can efficiently test your power transformers and reduce operations cost by as much as 90% with a mobile high voltage test facility. See what kind of testing can be performed on site with one of these facilities and discover three situations that make this kind of testing particularly effective at reducing downtime. To read more about on site testing and repair, download a free white paper: Increase transformer reliability and availability: From condition assessment to site repair.

Newsletter Signup

By clicking below, I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service
and to Penton's use of my contact information to communicate with me about Penton's or its third-party
partners' products, services, events and research opportunities. Penton's use of the information I
provide will be consistent with Penton's Privacy Policy.

I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service and to Penton's
use of my contact information to communicate with me about offerings by
Penton, its brands, affiliates and/or third-party partners, consistent
with Penton's Privacy Policy.*